quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
The English Aristocracy? These guys in the upper house are life politicians. I mean are we in 2002AD or 1782AD?
Barry, they can still introduce laws right? In an era of pseudo-democratic representation, that is mind boggling. Like a boys club gone crazy.
It's a class system. How is that different from India's caste system?
But there you go.
Isn't the Blairy-eyed one trying to do away with the House of Lords? Or has that fallen by the wayside?
This post is so riddled with misconception that I find it difficult to know where to start.
The unfortunate thing about this is that others may take this tissue of half-truths as being fact.
Firstly your thread title states 'What's the deal with Life peers?' You then start your post with 'The English Aristocracy' The aristocracy in the House of Lords are hereditary peers and are totally different from Life peers. Hereditary peerages are passed from generation to generation, these 96 make up the aristocracy in the House of Lords. Life peerages only last for the lifetime of the person involved.
Life peers can be put forward by any political party but Tony Blair has the final say. It is unusual for him to refuse anyone put forward but it has been known. The Life Peers recently introduced go by the name of 'Tony's Cronies' Life peers are drawn from all aspects of society, from industry, trade unions and the arts, as well as ex MPs.
The Lords cannot introduce bills into Parliament, that can only be done by the Commons. They can delay any Bill from the Commons three times. If the Governments wants to it can then force the bill through. Generally speaking a compromise is reached. Money bill such as the budget cannot be held up at all. With the current Labour Government having such a huge majority there is little opposition in the Commons leaving the Lords as the only form of opposition.
Recently the Government attempted to introduce an anti-terrorism bill at very short notice. 'If the House of Lords did not exist, or had complied with what the Home Office was aggressively insisting on, the act which is now law would have been substantially different. Police snooping into private records, including medical records, would have been allowed in the investigation of any crime anywhere in the world. There would have been no proper sunset clause, requiring regular reassessment of the vast powers the act confers. Another swath of EU powers would have been allowed to bypass parliament. A crime of incitement to religious hatred, with quite unconsidered effects on free speech and social order, would have swept briskly on to the statute book.
Pressure from the Lords forced these things to be changed. There was, moreover, nothing party-motivated about it. Religious hatred was struck out not because people do not see the problem, but because they knew it had no place in an anti-terrorism measure. Sometimes the Lords have played games with the Commons for base reasons of prejudice or party manoeuvre. Not this time.' (From the Guardian Newspaper)
Other high profile bills which were rejected by the Lords include reducing the age of consent for homosexual acts from 18 to 16 and the abolition of hunting.
The Lords is being reformed and hereditary peers will eventually disappear, it just takes time.
As for the class system that you seem so obsessed by Yorick
- I have never come across it in all my years of living here. If there is an aristocracy in Britain it consists of pop stars and footballers. Posh & Becks are the 'new' royalty.
I would also like to distance my self from the Looney Left of IW (Barry & Epona).
As for Tony Blair trying to do away with the Lords I think he is far too busy being our Ambassador to the world to bother with anything that happens here.
[ 03-04-2002: Message edited by: Donut ]